Brant Garner'S Mormon Stories Podcast

[sjdawg]

If you were taught that the Book of Mormon was translated perfectly then you were not taught at Church.

Really? Glad you cleared that up for me.

[Brant Gardner]

Sooooo....because a word "horse" doesn't act like a horse...it’s not a horse?

Because the text never describes any animal doing anything horse-like, especially the "horse," we cannot conclude that the vocabulary item "horse" is certainly an accurate representation of the word it translates (cue the examples from other texts).

When the BoM describes Ammon preparing the kings horse for his chariot...what way are we to interpret the sentence? It’s not a horse...its wasn't a chariot?

One of the interesting responses someone submitted to the podcast indicated that certainly the horse must have been a horse because what else would have been associated with a chariot? I was really quite amused that whoever wrote that so completely missed the point that they would use a vocabulary item with very little supporting context to require the accurate translation of "horse." You are, unfortunately, falling into the same trap. There is no more surety of translation in "chariot" than there is for "horse." In fact, there is even less information about a chariot, and given the strong biblical connection to warfare, certainly a modern author with the audacity to include a chariot ought to have it do something in a battle. Instead, Ammon feeds the "horse" and prepares the "chariot" for a feast. Not a common context at all.

Now, just as the oil lamp is behind what the KJV translated as "candle," so there must have been something behind "horse" and "chariot." What were they? There isn't enough information to know that either. However, in a Mesoamerican context of regal site visits, there are possibilities to explore that make much more sense that a horse that doesn't act like a horse and a chariot used as a carriage and not as a war implement.

I just believe that by discounting difficult problems by saying that words don't matter only creates other problems with other words. Which words can one rely on...only those that don't conflict with science? Is that where we really want to go?

It is really much simpler, and my hesitance with vocabulary extends well beyond your supposed conflict with science. I see the passage talking about Jesus Christ the Messiah as an artifact of translation. It is certainly understandable from Joseph's perspective, but we shouldn't see Christ and Messiah together in the original since they both mean the same thing but come from two different source languages.

As for other words, meaning is the important thing, not vocabulary. I can't read any text in translation and hand too much weight on the particular vocabulary because I don't know how well that vocabulary matches the semantic fields of the original. That is the reason that all scholars who can will go to the original rather than rely solely on translation.

If you are going to believe that the Book of Mormon is what it says it is, it openly says it is a translation. To treat it as anything else makes claims for the book that it does not make for itself.

[Freedom]

I hate to be such a CFR-driven poster, but where do come up with a statement like this? In other words, CFR that you know Nephite pottery would not reflect any Old World craftsmanship, would not contain any unique markings, or would have served any unique purposes related to their religion?

This is a strange expectation. Unless you can provide proof that they would have old world markings you would have to assume otherwise. People adopt the culture of the local population. You would be hard pressed to find uniquely polish characteristics in a 7th generation polish american home. We have about 15 to 20 Nephites joining a population of 2 million. The notion of the local population becoming hebrew rather than the hebrews becoming mesoamerican is not logical in my opinion. There is clear evidence of people moving to mesoamerica from other regions, however there is no evidence they had any influence on the art or language. There is clear evidence in Vancouver of people migrating from India, China, Japan and Korea, however they have not changed our language or music. Over time, their houses become Canadian houses. My local library used to have hundreds of books in various chinese languages, now they are in punjabi, in 30 years they will be back to enlish only unless another language group migrates here in large numbers.

[Freedom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezekiah's_Tunnel

This does not prove an event any more than the existence of brooms proves Harry Potter really could fly. There are many correlations between events recorded in the Book of Mormon and mesoamerica such as large cities, volcanic activity, extensive trade, a culture of gods living beneath the earth rather than above in the heavens or in the mountains, culture of war, river directions, relative distances of various cities in mesoamerica compared to the text. If I said I walked under the Fraser River and you come here to find a tunnel under the same body of water does that prove I did in fact walk under it? If I said I went to disneyland and you go to LA to find such a place, does that prove i went there? Of course not.

[Gervin]

This does not prove an event any more than the existence of brooms proves Harry Potter really could fly. There are many correlations between events recorded in the Book of Mormon and mesoamerica such as large cities, volcanic activity, extensive trade, a culture of gods living beneath the earth rather than above in the heavens or in the mountains, culture of war, river directions, relative distances of various cities in mesoamerica compared to the text. If I said I walked under the Fraser River and you come here to find a tunnel under the same body of water does that prove I did in fact walk under it? If I said I went to disneyland and you go to LA to find such a place, does that prove i went there? Of course not.

I wonder if there is anyone else reading this thread that agrees with your casual dismissal of this evidence? Here's another list for you to dismiss: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artifacts_significant_to_the_Bible

Feel free to post your own list of list of Book of Mormon artifacts to support your assertion that the Bible and Book of Mormon are on the same footing with regard to archaeological evidence.

[mfbukowski]

If a horse isn't what I interpret as horse, based on my own cultural conditioning, language horizons, and reluctance to consider words as signs, as signifiers of things, as resources for a translator, not the actual things, then how can I be certain of anything? And without absolute certainty about everything, then what? Without absolute certainly, how can I have faith?

(Pause for the arrival of the Irony Police).

Joseph Smith himself on translation, from D&C 128:18

"I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands."

Consider a translation and a translation artifact from the King James Translation: Matthew 5:14-15

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

When Jesus spoke, candles had not been invented. Does this mean not only that the passage is meaningless, that words have no meaning anywhere, that scholars or prophets or any source of knowledge can't be trusted, that, in actual fact, the sky is falling? Or, does it mean that as a functional translation of an idea, for the purposes of the translator that "candle" does the job as well as "olive oil lamp", particularly for an audience that had never seen and did not use olive oil lamps but who were familiar with candles?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Romeo:

But soft, what light through yonder window breaks?

It is the east, and Juliet is the sun.

Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon,

Who is already sick and pale with grief

That thou, her maid, art far more fair than she.

[zerinus]

I have neither read the book nor listened to all the podcasts, so I cannot really comment on most of what is being said here. I tried listening to the first podcast, and after listening to it a third of the way through got bored, switched off. Then I tried the second podcast to see if that would be more interesting. About a third of the way through I came across the following exchange between Brant and the interviewer (these notes were taken down by hand from the podcast, and will not be verbatim accurate):

Interviewer: If he [Joseph] had manufactured the characters of supposedly Reformed Egyptian, what was he doing taking them to Anthon for? If he had made those up, and knew that no one would be able to validate them because he didn’t want anyone to uncover his fraud, why would he want to take the characters to a professor?

Brant: Yes, another part of the theoretical your genius of Joseph is going to be putting together. I think that your question is an astute one. If it were a fraud, trying to have someone vindicate the fraud would be really quite crazy. The actual story, based on what we see of it is that the function of that was to convince Martin Harris. Joseph at that time may not have understood how to translate the Book of Mormon, may not have known what the method was going to be. There seems to be some indication that he was floundering trying to figure out how the Book of Mormon would be translated; and took some of those characters off, or had Martin Harris to do it, just to be able to see if there would be someone who would be able to translate them.

This doesn't seem to me to be an accurate representation of the events, for the following reasons:

1. Joseph Smith states in JS-H 1:62-63 that he copied considerable amount of the characters of the plates, and translated some of them by the Urim Thummim before Martin Harris had arrived to take them to the professors. Therefore Brant's suggestion that Joseph Smith had been "floundering trying to figure out how the Book of Mormon would be translated and didn't know how to translate the plates" is not born out by Joseph's own statement.
   
2. There is no clear evidence that the purpose of taking the characters to the professors was to convince Martin Harris; although that may have been an incidental by-product of it. The scriptures suggest that first of all he did it at the commandment of the Lord, not at his own whim; and secondly, its primary function was to test and prove the worthiness of the academic and scholarly world at that time. After that experience, no one could afterwards criticise God for not revealing the Book of Mormon through the academic world instead of doing it through an illiterate boy like Joseph Smith (see 2 Nephi 27:15-22).
   

I haven't listened to the rest of the podcasts, and I don't know what is in them; but here at least is something concrete that can be discussed more specifically, instead of talking about generalizations.

[Brant Gardner]

When I read the first few chapters of the book I was getting a feeling like you were setting up a way to make excuses for what I see as problems with the BOM and it's portrayed translation method.

Then I failed to be sufficiently clear. History isn't an excuse, it is perspective. It is particularly useful when people propose to use current understanding to interpret (and worse, judge) what happened in history. It isn't excuse, it is explanation. Joseph Smith lived in 1830, not 1930, and certainly not post-2000. It really makes a difference, and understanding history helps give that perspective.

When I listened to the podcast I felt like you were making excuses. I understand that you have put a lot time and thought into your ideas so I don't want to discount them but I am really not getting it.

I hope you understand when you are farther into the book. Of course, you should understand that discussing how the Book of Mormon was translated is possible only if it was a translation. In this book I had to posit that as a beginning point. However, I have been through a lot more evidence that allows me to have confidence that it really is a translation of an ancient document, and that therefore the examination of the nature of the translation possible.

I have been until the last little while an active member so my current thinking is much more negative than positive towards the BOM, that may be a bit of a stumbling block for me.

There really isn't any reason to discount the historicity of the Book of Mormon. If you accept it seriously as a translated ancient text and read it precisely as one would any other such a translated document, it fits with history quite well.

One issue that I have with ideas you put out is that I don't think what you believe is what is taught by the church.

This is an interesting and common issue. It is also one that seems to have no historical context. When wasn't something taught? Are we talking about whether anything has been in Sunday School manuals or whether General Authorities have taught it? If a General Authority, then specific ones? The problem is that if you read enough history, the "church didn't teach it" issue is much harder to understand. Lots of different things have been taught at lots of different times. Sometimes "the church" means what we have passed around among ourselves and simply assume is the right answer. Those communal answers have also changed over time.

We have a lay church with no fixed catechism. These are all open questions, and most of the really serious historical questions about the Book of Mormon have only been investigated since perhaps 1930 with most of the work coming post 1970.

I am pretty sure the church has never produced a manual that would say a horse in the BOM is not a horse.

Agreed. I think I am pretty clear that this is my idea and I don't suggest that it has wide acceptance (only that I find it consistent with all other findings).

I am also pretty sure you would never get a lesson that says that the white and dark skin was not real human skin. Have you ever taken you ideas and tested them against the manuals and words of the prophets.?

I certainly try not to contradict revealed information. I have no problem learning something that is new. I am aware that most people have read those words literally, and I understand why. I also understand why I have made the argument I have. The Book of Mormon simply does not support that reading. I actually do suspect that the common understanding of those verses will shift in the future as we learn more and understand more--and because the previous reading was not the result of revelation. I wouldn't suggest too much by it, but I was invited to a Church Curriculum forum to discuss how background can inform our understanding of the scriptures, and they specifically had me assign some chapters from my commentary for them to read. I don't for a minute suggest that it means anything more than that they were interested, but it certain can suggest that they were not appalled by my work.

Another issue I have is believing mormons who think they know more than the prophets or apostles do.

I hope you meant to follow that sentence with something like "about gospel doctrine," or some such. I can't imagine any prophet or apostle who thinks they know more about physics that Einstein did, or more about art than Rembrandt. There is a whole world of specialists who know a lot more about a lot of things than the prophets and apostles do. They have a very specific purview.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, they have consistently indicated that there is no revealed answer to questions of location and culture. Therefore, scholars are open to work on the issue. There is very good evidence that they are appreciative of those efforts.

I had been a literal believer in the church, I followed the prophet until I lost trust in the prophet.

I am sorry to hear that and certainly don't know what your experience has been. I can only say that my understanding of history tells me that history shouldn't be the cause for such a loss of faith.

It seems to me that maybe you don't trust the prophet(s) if you can assume that they have gotten some important things wrong. Or you don't trust that God is leading them.

Of course I trust them and I trust God. I just happen to also trust them when they say they are not perfect and that they are not experts in everything. I don't see that as a problem at all. I would trust them less if they pretended perfection.

One other thing, how long have the brains at BYU discounted the Quetzalcoatl being Jesus idea? Or is that just your idea? I had no idea that the people in the know at BYU thought the theory was bunk. Or did I miss some of what you were saying?

History again. Based on what most people knew, it seemed a good fit that Quetzalcoatl was Jesus Christ. However, after examining a lot of data carefully, I came to the conclusion that it couldn't be and I have been working to change perception. Some people accepted my conclusions. Others haven't. There is certainly no BYU conspiracy on the subject.

[Gervin]

This is a strange expectation. Unless you can provide proof that they would have old world markings you would have to assume otherwise.

Unless I can provide proof? I don't see any proof for Nephites, much less their pottery. You made the claim that their pottery is Mayan. You assume it's Mayan because you, also, can't find any proof for Nephites.

We have about 15 to 20 Nephites joining a population of 2 million. The notion of the local population becoming hebrew rather than the hebrews becoming mesoamerican is not logical in my opinion.

At least you acknowledge that it's just your opinion. Unfortunately, the Book of Mormon describes a robust Nephite culture of city building, cities, wars, Old World agriculture, and Mosaic religious practices (sort of). It doesn't describe subsumption into some weird Mayan culture of jaguar gods and snakes, jungle life, child sacrifice, and the like. So, how strong an influence is Mayan culture, religion, and politics to not even merit a passing mention in the Book of Mormon?

[Duncan]

If a horse isn't what I interpret as horse, based on my own cultural conditioning, language horizons, and reluctance to consider words as signs, as signifiers of things, as resources for a translator, not the actual things, then how can I be certain of anything? And without absolute certainty about everything, then what? Without absolute certainly, how can I have faith?

(Pause for the arrival of the Irony Police).

Joseph Smith himself on translation, from D&C 128:18

"I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands."

Consider a translation and a translation artifact from the King James Translation: Matthew 5:14-15

Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

When Jesus spoke, candles had not been invented. Does this mean not only that the passage is meaningless, that words have no meaning anywhere, that scholars or prophets or any source of knowledge can't be trusted, that, in actual fact, the sky is falling? Or, does it mean that as a functional translation of an idea, for the purposes of the translator that "candle" does the job as well as "olive oil lamp", particularly for an audience that had never seen and did not use olive oil lamps but who were familiar with candles?

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

very interesting!

[Brant Gardner]

Why not just choose to have faith?

Many have selected that path. I am interested in more depth and historical understanding so I seem compelled to ask questions.

Why not believe that the BOM means what it says and says what it means?

Again, many do. However, I don't know of any other book that should be taken that way. The Bible is certainly a prime example. We get so much more out of it when we understand the contexts that provide meaning beyond the words (particularly those that used in translation, but even for the original words we have some of the same issues).

Why not believe that the prophets of today and the past are led by inspiration and that they won't lead the church astray?

Are you suggesting that everything they say is direct and pure revelation and never governed by their own context? Do you know of any prophet in history that has not been a product of his (and her in the Bible) culture? Why create an image of prophet that has never existed?

Why does there need to be a functional translation?

It isn't a question of need, but rather of evidence of the result. Any translation might be functional. It is a possibility and the evidence should tell us which of the many possibilities it is. A literal rendition is also a possibility, as is an inerrant one. The evidence doesn't support the last and rarely the first.

Why can't the power of God give Joseph the proper word for an animal?

As one non-Mormon scholar said, if God could do anything, why have a translation at all? Just have Mormon write in English. Asking why of God seems a bit presumptuous. The best we can do is ask how, not why.

Why did God display horse in the seer stone and not something better?

That is why I decided to examine the nature of translation. If we understand the process then we can better understand the features of the translation.

Why can't defenders just choose to believe that the words are correct in the most correct book of any on earth?

That answer is simpler. We actually read the context in which the statement was made and read it against context (rather like we read the Book of Mormon). Using the phrase "most correct book" to mean inerrant is adding an meaning to that phrase that was never intended (which is clear from the context and from other analyses).

It was written for our day, our modem day, for people with modern ideas and modern experiences. It wasn't written for the nephites or the jaredites or the mulekites.

And yet Mormon wrote specifically to Lamanites and never seems to have understood how much different our world is from his. It was written to testify to our times, and does so just as the Bible does, even though it too was written a long time ago and in a different language and cultural context. There is no reason to make the Book of Mormon into something it never claimed to be. Even less so when we make it into something it never claimed to be and then say it can't be true because it isn't exactly the way we think it should have been. It is hardly fair to the text to treat it to two conflicting modern interpretations.

for me it has to be true without excuses, long intellectual explanations or advanced institutional degrees.

Of course, and the vast majority who use it to guide their spiritual lives find it to be just that kind of true.

[Brant Gardner]

From a believing LDS prespective the only ancient civilization that ever existed that left no evidence of its existance is the Nephite/Lamanite/Jaradite civilizations...all other civilizations that left no evidence of their existance are fictional

No. Civilizations leave traces. It isn't a question of traces, it is one of identification. We say that we have a certain style pot, but we also trace that style as it moves over a region - or when it is more isolated. Even in some of the specialized versions, they may show evidence of wider trends. None of those specifically denote the political preference or religion of the potmaker (particularly unadorned pots).

Material culture must be interpreted. Material culture spreads. Even in Palestine, many items of material culture came from conquering nations. Seeing Assyrian architecture tells us that there was Assyrian influence, not that there were no Israelites.

I will reiterate my request. Please tell me what you believe a Nephite remain should look like so we will know what hasn't been found.

[mikeuu]

Thanks for the reply, while my thinking is not conforming to your ideas, your responses to questions are very open and I really appreciate that.

I hope you understand when you are farther into the book. Of course, you should understand that discussing how the Book of Mormon was translated is possible only if it was a translation. In this book I had to posit that as a beginning point. However, I have been through a lot more evidence that allows me to have confidence that it really is a translation of an ancient document, and that therefore the examination of the nature of the translation possible.

Now that you mention that I think I do remember that in the book. I need to read when I am awake as opposed to when I am almost asleep.

There really isn't any reason to discount the historicity of the Book of Mormon. If you accept it seriously as a translated ancient text and read it precisely as one would any other such a translated document, it fits with history quite well.

This is probably part of my problem, I can't give up the idea that it was inspired more than translated.

This is an interesting and common issue. It is also one that seems to have no historical context. When wasn't something taught? Are we talking about whether anything has been in Sunday School manuals or whether General Authorities have taught it? If a General Authority, then specific ones? The problem is that if you read enough history, the "church didn't teach it" issue is much harder to understand. Lots of different things have been taught at lots of different times. Sometimes "the church" means what we have passed around among ourselves and simply assume is the right answer. Those communal answers have also changed over time.

I see your point there.

I certainly try not to contradict revealed information. I have no problem learning something that is new. I am aware that most people have read those words literally, and I understand why. I also understand why I have made the argument I have. The Book of Mormon simply does not support that reading. I actually do suspect that the common understanding of those verses will shift in the future as we learn more and understand more--and because the previous reading was not the result of revelation. I wouldn't suggest too much by it, but I was invited to a Church Curriculum forum to discuss how background can inform our understanding of the scriptures, and they specifically had me assign some chapters from my commentary for them to read. I don't for a minute suggest that it means anything more than that they were interested, but it certain can suggest that they were not appalled by my work.

What do you think the last 3 prophets would say to you about your ideas. Do you think they would be open to them and say, "they are interesting", would they say you are "off base and need to repent" or would they maybe say they agree with your some of your ideas? I think the last three would say it is interesting, Pres Benson might say you need to repent. Anyway just a funny thought I had reading through here.

I hope you meant to follow that sentence with something like "about gospel doctrine," or some such. I can't imagine any prophet or apostle who thinks they know more about physics that Einstein did, or more about art than Rembrandt. There is a whole world of specialists who know a lot more about a lot of things than the prophets and apostles do. They have a very specific purview.

Yes the gospel and Mormon history, including lamanite history, through their own study, inspiration and revelation.

I am sorry to hear that and certainly don't know what your experience has been. I can only say that my understanding of history tells me that history shouldn't be the cause for such a loss of faith.

I wouldn't say history, I would say the way the church treats doctrines, teaching and history that it doesn't like anymore. "It" and "The Church" being the quorum of the 12 and the 1st Presidency.

History again. Based on what most people knew, it seemed a good fit that Quetzalcoatl was Jesus Christ. However, after examining a lot of data carefully, I came to the conclusion that it couldn't be and I have been working to change perception. Some people accepted my conclusions. Others haven't. There is certainly no BYU conspiracy on the subject.

I thought you mentioned in the podcast that it was openly made fun of in whatever dept you were doing your undergrad in. So there isn't a consensus on that?

[Brant Gardner]

Reading this thread really gives me a headache. Am I the only who grew up being taught that the BOM had been translated perfectly? The bible was generally true but the translation had some issues, but the BOM translation was perfect. So perfect in fact that Joseph Smith at times spelled words out so the scribe wouldn't get them wrong. Maybe it was just me. I don't know.

I'm sure I grew up with similar ideas. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has ever asked questions about the things I was told growing up. I was also grossly misinformed about dinosaurs--and that was from the scientists who had not yet understood how they moved. At the time they were slow and plodding with the sauropods dragging their heavy tails along. The picture is now very different.

I think that learning new things by asking new questions is a good thing.

[Brant Gardner]

This doesn't seem to me to be an accurate representation of the events, for the following reasons:

1. Joseph Smith states in JS-H 1:62-63 that he copied considerable amount of the characters of the plates, and translated some of them by the Urim Thummim before Martin Harris had arrived to take them to the professors. Therefore Brant's suggestion that Joseph Smith had been "floundering trying to figure out how the Book of Mormon would be translated and didn't know how to translate the plates" is not born out by Joseph's own statement

This is a later statement and I don't know how much it was influenced by his editors (much in that history was). I was referencing a statement his mother remembered. Of course that statement is also later. It is at least a question.

There is no clear evidence that the purpose of taking the characters to the professors was to convince Martin Harris; although that may have been an incidental by-product of it.

There is no clear evidence for the purpose at all. We can agree about the result and from the Lord's perspective that was probably the reason since no one could have authenticated the script or given a translation.

[Freedom]

What do you think the last 3 prophets would say to you about your ideas. Do you think they would be open to them and say, "they are interesting", would they say you are "off base and need to repent" or would they maybe say they agree with your some of your ideas? I think the last three would say it is interesting, Pres Benson might say you need to repent. Anyway just a funny thought I had reading through here.

I think the best, and perhaps only way to find the answer to this question is to see what is published by the church. If you look at the ensign for the past 30 years, you will find many articles that address these types of issues. I don't know if the prophet reads each one before it is published, but you can be sure that he reads if afterwards. The fact that the articles continue to be publish suggests to me that they do not have a problem with these ideas.

[Gervin]

Please tell me what you believe a Nephite remain should look like so we will know what hasn't been found.

This seems like a good question for a professionally-trained archaeologist who is also LDS. What would they / do they say?

[zerinus]

This is a later statement and I don't know how much it was influenced by his editors (much in that history was). I was referencing a statement his mother remembered. Of course that statement is also later. It is at least a question.

Not sure what you mean by "a later statement". If you mean that the account was written down much later than the event, maybe; but I don't think that Joseph's own statement can be written off just like that without clear evidence to the contrary; otherwise how are you going to trust the story of the First Vision told in the standard works at all?

There is no clear evidence for the purpose at all. We can agree about the result and from the Lord's perspective that was probably the reason since no one could have authenticated the script or given a translation.

I think the purpose was indicated in the scripture referenced (2 Nephi 27:15-22). If you think that 2 Nephi 27:15-22 is not a true statement, can you explain why?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This seems like a good question for a professionally-trained archaeologist who is also LDS. What would they / do they say?

Dodge ball is in season. We are not asking you to believe the BoM here. We are asking "assuming the Nephites were real, how would we identify a nephite item". Please start from there and stop playing games.

No critic has seriously attempted to asnwer this question.

[Freedom]

Unless I can provide proof? I don't see any proof for Nephites, much less their pottery. You made the claim that their pottery is Mayan. You assume it's Mayan because you, also, can't find any proof for Nephites.

At least you acknowledge that it's just your opinion. Unfortunately, the Book of Mormon describes a robust Nephite culture of city building, cities, wars, Old World agriculture, and Mosaic religious practices (sort of). It doesn't describe subsumption into some weird Mayan culture of jaguar gods and snakes, jungle life, child sacrifice, and the like. So, how strong an influence is Mayan culture, religion, and politics to not even merit a passing mention in the Book of Mormon?

I make the assumption that it is mayan because that is the logical assumption. I don’t think you have read my posts. What country do your ancestors come from and how many of your dishes come from there? I would not expect to find proof of a nephite pot because the text never describes what they would look like. The natural conclusion is that the Nephites would have purchased their pot from the same store that the pagan jaguar worshipers bought it from. I would agree that it talks of cities and wars and the archaeology supports this. Rather than agriculture, I believe you mean plants. Are you aware of what plants the Olmecs ate and why we know this? They found one seed of one plant and the archaeologists reservingly argue that this was a common food. We have no data, so we cannot draw any conclusions of what the people ate 3000 years ago. The nature of the soil, and the limitations of the research due to terrain and apathy on the part of the government means we know virtually nothing of the people in this area. Other than carefully protected ceremonial graves, we have not found any bones or foods. The text says very little of the culture, it is primarily focused on teaching doctrine. We know nothing of the lamanite religious practices, only the Nephites. But even those practices are not detailed. You mention the jaguar gods, snakes, child sacrifice and so forth, but it is important to realize that the carvings and murals were not found at all locations. All they know is that this was part of their culture, but nobody knows how pervasive it was. Finding one stone carving does not prove the entire region followed this religion. It simply means that one stone carving was found at one location that was only partially investigated until funds ran out or the Government stepped in and ploughed the area over to build a highway. When the first discoveries were made in the 1940s, many of the locations were striped and destroyed by thieves selling to the highest bidder.

Another important point that needs to be stressed is that we do not know where the Book of Mormon took place. I base my arguments on the assumptions that they took place in mesoamerica. Until we have the location pinned down, it is difficult to draw too many conclusions.

[Gervin]

Dodge ball is in season. We are not asking you to believe the BoM here. We are asking "assuming the Nephites were real, how would we identify a nephite item". Please start from there and stop playing games.

I simply suggested that a trained archaeologist who believes in Nephites might be a particularly good source for describing a Nephite artifact. Perhaps you can tell me, without dodging the question, why their opinion would not be valuable?

No critic has seriously attempted to asnwer this question.

No critic takes the question seriously or has been shown by the LDS church that it should be taken seriously. There is no evidence, apart from the Book of Mormon, of a Nephite culture. Asking for a description of artifacts from that culture simply highlights the fact. So, I suggest asking the question of an LDS professional archaeologist. At least your starting with someone who believes Nephites existed.

[Freedom]

This seems like a good question for a professionally-trained archaeologist who is also LDS. What would they / do they say?

The most prominent archaeologist that I know of is John Clark. He is considered a leading expert on the Olman region. However, since the book is silent on the matter, we have no basis to compare. I do not know of a single reference to art forms, housing, or even cooking practices. Consequently, it would be impossible to draw any conclusions. If I found a text from this time period that told a story of how a man traveled to the top of a mountain and fought with a bear, would you be able to determine the nature of his clothing or housing if nothing is mentioned in the text? I do not understand why we should be able to identify a distinct nephite artifact if the text does not describe them, we do not know where the events took place, and the mesoamericans left no written record. Can you provide some references that would tell me I should believe otherwise?

[Freedom]

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2005_Debating_the_Foundations_of_Mormonism.html

Here is an article that provides some of the opinions of John Clark.

[Rivers]

Brother Gardner, you make an interesting case about the manner in which The Book of Mormon talks about a skin of blackness. You say that the text doesn't support the belief that Lamanites had different pigmentation than the Nephites. What do you make of this passage in Alma 55 in which the Nephites choose a spy to bring wine to the Lamanites?

Alma 55:4-8

4 And now it came to pass that when Moroni had said these words, he caused that a search should be made among his men, that perhaps he might find a man who was a descendant of Laman among them.

5 And it came to pass that they found one, whose name was Laman; and he was ^aone of the servants of the king who was murdered by Amalickiah.

7 Now the Nephites were guarded in the city of ^aGid; therefore Moroni appointed Laman and caused that a small number of men should go with him.

8 And when it was evening Laman went to the guards who were over the Nephites, and behold, they saw him coming and they hailed him; but he saith unto them: Fear not; behold, I am a Lamanite. Behold, we have escaped from the Nephites, and they sleep; and behold we have taken of their wine and brought with us.

Why would the Nephites need to find a descendent of Laman to go among the Lamanites if they all looked the same?

I recently ordered your book as a birthday present for myself and I look forward to reading it.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Rivers

[Brant Gardner]

This seems like a good question for a professionally-trained archaeologist who is also LDS. What would they / do they say?

That is the rub. There is no way to know. I know John Clark (whose qualifications certainly fit) has suggested that we have already dug up Nephite remains, but we just don't know how to identify them. I would agree with him.